|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2006 : 12:55:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
My dislike of current BB theory actually dates back to Guth. That is probably because I'm old enough to remember BB theory before Guth became "popular". I always thought Guth's personal fascination with an inflation stage was utterly "made up", right from the beginning. It smacked of a creation myth from my perspective. Worse however is that he kept piling on the "mystical" qualities he associated with the inflation stage, and violating light speed restrictions in the process.
While I've always had a great interest in astronomy and cosmology, I can't say I can recall Guth or the introduction of inflation as a means of explaining various problems with the Big Bang. This might have to do with the fact that I was probably 5 when such things were introducted, but whatever. So a prodigy, I'm not.
quote:
Nevertheless, astromers doted all over him and cited his work repeatedly. I shudder to think how many times his original paper has now been refereneced. They even started teaching inflation theory as "gospel" for a long time. However, it's quite clear now that this stage of BB theory is based on some sort of *faith* in the existence of a "particle/field" that has never been evidenced in nature. Worse yet, it seems to be a completely unfasifyable hypothesis, since that particle/field doesn't exist anymore, and we can't test for it.
I don't want to rehash the Big Bang debate now, but your stance regarding this is one of the most bizzare imaginable. Particularly when you don't also vehemently reject things like dark matter or dark energy. Your assertion that the assertion is "unfalsifiable" is rather unfair, as the questions behind the phenomenon are still being explored. You're rejecting an idea before the data have even been examined!
quote:
It's all one big creation myth from my perspective and it's motivated on the human desire to have convenient "beginnings" and well defined "endings". I tend to have a problem with creation myths, especially creation myths that can't be tested or falsified. That's my problem with BB theory, and it relates primarily to the inflation aspect of BB theory, and the fact the "force" of expansion remains "unexplained" IMO.
But the Big Bang has been tested! Predictions were made and they came through with flying colors! With observation and experiment supporting the Big Bang, it is difficult to abandon it in favor of a completely new model. Unless you want iron early in your universe, that is.
In any case, the Big Bang did not arise out of a desire to have a beginning. It arose because when you see everything moving away from everything else at predictable rates, then the only logical conclusion is that things were once much, much closer. Then you work some math to imagine what the universe would have been like at that time and make some predictions. The next thing you know, you have stuff like CMBR and element frequencies and that's what you're stuck with.
The irony in your refusal to accept the Big Bang is that while you complain that people are fabricating "myths" because they want a beginning, you are, in fact, rejecting reality because you don't want one!
quote:
I can substitute "MECO's" for infaltion particles, and I can substitute EM fields in place of expansion fields, and I can be relatively "happy" with that "type" of creation event, but frankly these days I'm learning toward a static universe model.
Which is fine, except that nothing supports that idea. However, it makes you "happy" because it has no beginning, and you get your iron. It's a win-win for delusions about the universe! |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 13:33:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
On the other hand, if nobody can explain direct satellite observations with gas model theory, then I have no evidence to suggest that the sun works according to gas model theory. It's just that simple.
Ah, so that is the problem: you think that satellite images are the only sort of "direct observations" which can be made of the Sun. That's simply naive, and it's simply wrong in the case of running difference images, which aren't "direct" measurements.quote:
On the other hand, I have no trouble at all explaining these images in the context of a Birkeland solar model.
Yes, you do, since you need to reverse the direction of the electron flow as compared to Birkeland's terrella.quote:
According to a Birkeland theory, those rigid patterns are simply solid surface features that are reflecting the changing light from the coronal loops.
Birkeland's ideas have precisely nothing to say about running average or running difference images.quote:
We see the reflections of light from stationary hills and valleys.
Not in a running difference image, we don't.quote:
We see reflections of light from the "puffs" of material that have been ejected from the surface into the solar atmosphere as the CME takes place.
Not in a running difference image, we don't.quote:
The peeling effect we see on the right is due to surface erosion that is caused by the arcs/loops that are traversing the surface, and ripping particles off the surface as they go.
Where is your evidence that there are electrical forces capable of ripping this alleged surface apart?quote:
The reason the CME doesn't change the geometric relationships of the patterns we see because the surface is solid and therefore it withstands that kind of energy release, unlike light plasma that would not.
You're talking about an explosion thousands, if not millions of times stronger than Hiroshima, and that tiny bomb turned buildings into piles of rubble. Why don't CMEs shatter your allegedly solid surface, Michael? Why don't they at least rip the tops off the "hills?"quote:
We can even observe the differential rotation occuring in the plasma, as the dust from the surface is carried by the plasma and drifts toward the upper right side of the image after the CME occurs.
That's not differential solar rotation, Michael, because if it were, it would mean that the Sun is rotating 100 times faster than you have measured. You still don't understand differential solar rotation.quote:
It's no big mystery explaining this image using a Birkeland solar model.
Your explanation makes no sense, Michael, since it rejects the reality of running difference images, it rejects the reality of the strength of CMEs, it rejects the reality of Birkeland's experiments, and it rejects the reality of differential solar rotation.quote:
That first Lockheed image on my website is the image that gas model theorists tend to avoid like the plague. If you feel like taking a shot at explaining this image using gas model theory, be my guest. I'm all ears.
A challenge to other people does not in any way constitute evidence in favor of your ideas.quote:
You can also note that the Doppler images on the tsunami page which were put together by Alexander Kosovichev from Stanford also reveal "rigid" features sitting at a shallow depth underneath the visible photopshere.
No, the Doppler images show nothing rigid at all. The features you claim are rigid are actually strong plasma flows.quote:
That circled strucuture is utterly uneffected by the wave that propagates through the photosphere.
Yeah, just like a boat will be unaffected (horizontally) by the waves that move under it.quote:
That circled shape is exactly the same shape, size and distance from the epicenter after the wave passes over as it was at the beginning of the image.
Just as would be expected for a pressure wave moving through an entirely plasma "atmosphere."quote:
Doppler images certainly work to reveal surface structure here on earth...
You've never been able to demonstrate the truth of that claim, despite being asked numerous times.quote:
...and they clearly reveal the wave on the photosphere, as well as the structure under the photosphere.
Only if you completely disregard the way the MDI works and the post-processing done to create the images. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 13:42:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Michael, how should those images look according to the gas model? I mean, if you say that they all don't look right, what is "right"?
I have no idea how things "should" look. I'm simply asking you to explain these direct observations using gas model theory. Can you do so, yes or no?
The point I am trying to make here is that I have personally never been able to explain these images using gas model solar theories or any extensions of gas model solar theories. More telling however is the fact that that neither has anyone else I've asked at NASA and Lockheed. In fact, nobody has explained this image in any detail using gas model theory in any of the conversations I've ever had on this subject. This includes months of conversations at the bautforum and months of conversations here and on the Lifesciences forums, as well as several other smaller forums. It's evidently not an easy image to explain using gas model theory. Since I can't do it myself, I certainly can't judge anyone for not being able to explain these images using gas model theory. On the other hand, if nobody can explain direct satellite observations with gas model theory, then I have no evidence to suggest that the sun works according to gas model theory. It's just that simple.
What I have seen time and again from you in these forums is the question: can you explain X using gas model theory. Because no one can, you reject it in favor some some other theory. But what you should be doing is trying to show how the images cannot be from a gas model.
More importantly, though, you need to ask: should a gas model theory be able to explain it? Sometimes, I get the impression that what you're doing is akin to asking a physicist if the theory of gravity can explain the fossil record-- and clamoring for a radical new theory of gravity when all the scientists give you quizzical looks!
quote:
That first Lockheed image on my website is the image that gas model theorists tend to avoid like the plague. If you feel like taking a shot at explaining this image using gas model theory, be my guest. I'm all ears.
Again, is it that these people can't explain it because it's impossible under gas model theory? Or because the theory simply isn't applicable to your images. Indeed, you keep asking a person to "explain" the images. What are you looking for? A math formula? And if not, what? Because if you are just looking for me to plug in gas model terms similar for concepts like hills and valley, we can make them up. After all, you already said that you don't know what to expect from the images if they were appied to a gas model sun, so what's to say that the images are exactly what a gas model sun would produce? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 14:46:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I don't know who many times it has been written already, and explained to you in several different ways: You are demanding that a theory that explains the large scale structure of the sun, explain minute details in photos of a different aspect.
Of course. I'm *insisting* that all theories worthy of consideration should be able to explain direct satellite observations. Why shouldn't they? If we're going to spend billions of dallars lauching solar satellites into space, don't you think we should expect to learn something from them? Don't you think we should try to explain them logically and rationally?
quote:
You could just as well be demanding that Boyle's Law explain the Brownian Motion of microscopic dust particles in a gas. Or you can claim that meteorology is bunk when the wind is blowing leafs in circles in you back yard when the weather prognosis said "breeze from the south".
These aren't even reasonable analogies in the first place. These are solar theories, and these are solar images. The sun behaves a certain way, based on the way it's constructed. Satellite systems can help us understand how it's constructed, just like any other field of solar science. Gas model theory isn't somehow immune from explaining data from this particular field of solar science Dr. Mabuse.
quote:
Your demands that the solar model explain detailed features of the photosphere is unreasonable.
No, it is completely reasonable, and it's a requirement of all solar models. If the solar model is viable, it should jive with *this* field of solar science, and it should be consistent with this field of solar science, and it should offer explanations for this field of solar science.
quote:
Hydrodynamics seems more likely a discipline to explain the convection patterns of the photosphere.
These are not images of the photosphere. According to Lockheed Martin, it's an area far above the photosphere. According to me it is located about 4800 KM beneath the photosphere. These patterns cannot be structures on the photosphere because structures on the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes or so. Photosphere structures are composed of plasma. As such they show obvious signs of movement over hour long timelines just like movement of the dust we see blowing in the plasma wind.
quote:
You are ignoring that Dave have already told you that the surface in the surrounding areas increase in temperature more than enough to compensate for the temp drop in the sunspot. Don't you read his posts?
Sure I read his posts, but I don't necessarily agree with them. His answer is inconsistent and imcomplete IMO. It's more of a handwave arguement from where I sit. How unusual the physics must be to explain how huge drops of temperature appear in the photosphere directly over/under areas of high temperature plasma. Why can't this region be peaking in a *higher* wavelength because it's *hotter* than the surrounding material?
quote:
Your constant ignoring of such facts....
Just because you or Dave make some claim, does not make it a "fact" by default, nor does it obligate me to agree with you. The "opinion" that you and Dave share about sunspots being darker because all the plasma in that region is exactly the same temperature and exactly 2000 degrees cooler than the rest of the photosophere is not demontrated to be a "fact", and I'm not obligated to say "ok" just because you state your opinion.
The belief Dave has that the other areas of the photosphere make up the difference in total output is also not "fact", it is instead simply a "hypothesis" that is related to gas model solar theory, and I'm not obligated to agree to it, just because someone says so.
quote:
...and constant repetition of untruths as your statement above was shown to be, is what made me drop out of the discussion, and prompts Dave to call you a liar (to which I have to concede he's got a point).
Et tu? Where have I repeated untruths intentionally?
quote:
What's the point of talking to you, when you are just as likely to acknowledge facts as religious fanatics?
I find that rather amusing considering the cirumstances. Here we are on a skeptics website talking about astronomy and I'm the "atheist" as it were. Dave here has been the preacher against atheism, and you've been chiming in as you see fit. Neither of you can explain a running difference image with your "dogma", even though Birkeland's model works like a champ. You two evidently have "faith" in gas model theory none the less, and metaphysical particles of inflation that nobody has every seen and that can never be falsified, and I'm the one acting like a religious fanatic?
quote:
The gas model theory wasn't created to explain running difference images of any kind.
But it it's viable, it should be able to explain them.
quote:
quote:
It can't explain that stratification subsurface that's blocking plasma flow.
Your interpretation is in dispute. You haven't shown any such thing.
In that sunspot study, the plasma flow movements all went horizontal at about 3800 feet. It's horizontal in north/south direction as well as east/west direction. In Kosovichev's stratification paper, he describes the movement of the top and bottom of this stratifcation subsurface over time.
quote:
This is symptomatic.
And I'm thinking that playing Guild Wars on-line is a much better use of my time.
I'll keep browsing the thread, and if some earth-shattering revelation is presented here, then I might address it.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 15:25:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
While I've always had a great interest in astronomy and cosmology, I can't say I can recall Guth or the introduction of inflation as a means of explaining various problems with the Big Bang. This might have to do with the fact that I was probably 5 when such things were introducted, but whatever. So a prodigy, I'm not.
Age here evidently plays a roll and I'll briefly explain why:
quote:
I don't want to rehash the Big Bang debate now, but your stance regarding this is one of the most bizzare imaginable. Particularly when you don't also vehemently reject things like dark matter or dark energy. Your assertion that the assertion is "unfalsifiable" is rather unfair, as the questions behind the phenomenon are still being explored. You're rejecting an idea before the data have even been examined!
I simply see no evidece to support the existence of an "infaton field/particle", and nobody has ever offered a way to test for it. It's a concept without a falsification mechanism.
quote:
But the Big Bang has been tested! Predictions were made and they came through with flying colors!
Here's where I think age makes a big difference. The "predictions" made with early BB models not only didn't come through with flying colors, they failed miserably. I'm old enough to remember looking at those charts and graphs about timelines of when galaxies formed that showed universes forming only after *billions* (plural) of year after the BB. Now that Hubble and Spitzer have shown this isn't the case, the timelines have all been altered accordingly. The "passing with flying colors" notion is only something you can claim if you don't know the history. Unfortunately I know the whole history.
quote:
With observation and experiment supporting the Big Bang, it is difficult to abandon it in favor of a completely new model.
Not really. It's only "difficult" if you have to have an explanation for everything.
quote:
Unless you want iron early in your universe, that is.
It doesn't really matter. Iron could have "evolved" over that timeline anyway. I could still explain an iron sun in the context of BB. It's irrelevant actually, and my skepticism of BB theory started a very long time before I became skeptical of gas model solar theory. My skepticism of each of these ideas began independently of each other. They weren't necessarily even related. I had already rejected BB theory even before noticing that the sun was mostly made of iron, and iron can be created even in a BB scenario. I have no emotional need to reject BB theory because I first rejected solar theory. In fact, it worked the other way around in my particular case.
quote:
In any case, the Big Bang did not arise out of a desire to have a beginning.
How do you know that? How do you know for sure that there was ever a time with matter (atoms) did not exist?
quote:
It arose because when you see everything moving away from everything else at predictable rates,
First of all, you should study Arp's work, and study the redshift debate. There is no guarantee that Hubble's "law" is a "law" at all.
quote:
then the only logical conclusion is that things were once much, much closer.
Ok, even if we go with Hubble over Arp for a second, even if we assume that everything we see was once "closer together", how do we know that there was ever a time when atoms did not actually exist? Galaxies collide all the time, but the atoms in them precede the collision, and often survive the collision too.
quote:
Then you work some math to imagine what the universe would have been like at that time and make some predictions.
I think the key word in that sentence is "imagine".
quote:
The next thing you know, you have stuff like CMBR and element frequencies and that's what you're stuck with.
Being "stuck" with them isn't a problem. Interpreting the data is the problem.
quote:
The irony in your refusal to accept the Big Bang is that while you complain that people are fabricating "myths" because they want a beginning, you are, in fact, rejecting reality because you don't want one!
I have no problems with "beginnings", or someone's concept of "reality" so long as there is evidence to support it. I see exactly no definitive evidence to support the belief that there was ever a time when atoms and matter did not exist. Until I see such evidence, I have no reason to "assume" much of anything related to the the "beginnings" of these things.
quote:
Which is fine, except that nothing supports that idea.
All of Arps work supports the idea. That article on MECO's I presented supports the idea.
quote:
However, it makes you "happy" because it has no beginning, and you get your iron. It's a win-win for delusions about the universe!
I don't really care if there is a beginning. That would be fine by me. I'm more than happy to entertain a creation story. I simply need to see some viable evidence to support it if I'm going to consider it to be viable scientific theory. I find no scientific evidence from the fields of QM, GR or particle physics to support the notion of inflaton fields or particles. I see no way to test for them. These then must be condsidered metaphysical concepts since they are ful |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 15:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
What I have seen time and again from you in these forums is the question: can you explain X using gas model theory. Because no one can, you reject it in favor some some other theory. But what you should be doing is trying to show how the images cannot be from a gas model.
Well, the most obvious reason this layer can't be made of hydrogen plasma is because there's no movement in the patterns over very long timeframes. Thin plasma doesn't behave like that. The structure of the photosphere are created and destroyed in roughly 8 minute intervals and the surface is very "fluid-like" by nature and moves around. That movement is consitant, much like that "dust" we see blowing around in the plasma during the video. That dust we see is pretty important by the way. It shows us the movement of the plamsa in relationship to the surface features below.
quote:
More importantly, though, you need to ask: should a gas model theory be able to explain it?
The answer is yes, it should.
quote:
Sometimes, I get the impression that what you're doing is akin to asking a physicist if the theory of gravity can explain the fossil record-- and clamoring for a radical new theory of gravity when all the scientists give you quizzical looks!
But these issues are directly related. We're talking about solar theory and how well it explains and jives with direct observations of a sun. These are apples to apples comparisons.
quote:
Again, is it that these people can't explain it because it's impossible under gas model theory?
I didn't start out these dabates thinking that way. I have expected someone to do so when I first started. Over the past year however I'm starting to think that nobody on earth can explain them using gas model theories.
quote:
Or because the theory simply isn't applicable to your images.
The images are of the sun. These images are therefor applicable to *all* solar theories and all solar theories should be able to explain them. Birkeland's solar theory offers very viable explanations for such images, in fact Birkeland produced images in his lab that look remarkably like modern solar satellite images of the susn.
quote:
Indeed, you keep asking a person to "explain" the images. What are you looking for? A math formula? And if not, what?
I'd be happy with just the basics here. I don't need any detailed math, just some based theorical concepts to explain the rigid behaviors of this layer in relationship to the dust we see blowing in the plasma wind.
quote:
Because if you are just looking for me to plug in gas model terms similar for concepts like hills and valley, we can make them up.
Go right ahead.
quote:
After all, you already said that you don't know what to expect from the images if they were appied to a gas model sun, so what's to say that the images are exactly what a gas model sun would produce?
One of the major benifits of studing solar images over many years is you start to get a "feel" for "textures" and movements and it starts to be possible to pick out patterns after awhile. Kosovichev's video of the tsunami on the photosphere gives you an idea of the fluidlike nature of plasma. It moves and it behaves very much like a thick gas or a liquid. Things are constantly in motion in plasma. That's why there is differential rotation in plasma. That's why the dust blows in the wind. Plasma moves. Solids don't move like that. Solid objects stay put when the plasma blows light things around. They can withstand things like CME's without changing too much.
The real issue here is movement, and specially a *lack of movement* that you see in Doppler and RD images. While that wave passes through the photosphere like a wave passing through liquid, the structures under that photosphere are rigid and remain rigid over much longer timelines. If you want to know what it *should* look like if it's made of plasma, you *should* see some movement that is consistent with the texture of plasma. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 16:18:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I simply see no evidece to support the existence of an "infaton field/particle", and nobody has ever offered a way to test for it. It's a concept without a falsification mechanism.
Well, since you can't see it, then you must be right. We'll scrap the whole thing, I guess.
quote:
quote:
But the Big Bang has been tested! Predictions were made and they came through with flying colors!
Here's where I think age makes a big difference. The "predictions" made with early BB models not only didn't come through with flying colors, they failed miserably. I'm old enough to remember looking at those charts and graphs about timelines of when galaxies formed that showed universes forming only after *billions* (plural) of year after the BB. Now that Hubble and Spitzer have shown this isn't the case, the timelines have all been altered accordingly. The "passing with flying colors" notion is only something you can claim if you don't know the history. Unfortunately I know the whole history.
So evolution is wrong when some new fossil pushes back the dates for a human ancestor, I guess.
quote:
It doesn't really matter. Iron could have "evolved" over that timeline anyway. I could still explain an iron sun in the context of BB.
No you can't! You need non-iron stars to make heavier elements. But under your model, stars are already made up of heavy elements like iron!
quote:
quote:
In any case, the Big Bang did not arise out of a desire to have a beginning.
How do you know that? How do you know for sure that there was ever a time with matter (atoms) did not exist?
Huh? You argued above that the Big Bang (as a theory) was developed at least in part because people wanted to have a creation myth. I simply noted that a creation myth had nothing to do with Hubble's obeservations.
quote:
quote:
It arose because when you see everything moving away from everything else at predictable rates,
First of all, you should study Arp's work, and study the redshift debate. There is no guarantee that Hubble's "law" is a "law" at all.
Well, I've done some looking into it, and it seems that his ideas about quasars have generally been rejected. This, I'm sure, in your mind, means he's dead on. In any case, as a non-specialist, I am forced to some extent to listen to other experts. Similarly, I hope you would take my word over that of Zecheria Sitchin. So when I read quote:
Since Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960's, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly. QSO's are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many objects that are high-redshift counterparts to normal nearby galaxies have been idenfitied in many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field. Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects,
I am forced to agree with the mainstream.
quote:
quote:
then the only logical conclusion is that things were once much, much closer.
Ok, even if we go with Hubble over Arp for a second, even if we assume that everything we see was once "closer together", how do we know that there was ever a time when atoms did not actually exist? Galaxies collide all the time, but the atoms in them precede the collision, and often survive the collision too.
Do the math, man. Closer and denser means higher temperatures, and at higher temperatures molecules break down. At really high temperatures, even atoms don't maintain their bonds. This is the whole point of CMBR! This is exactly what people like Gamow and Alpher were talking about! It's why Hydrogen and Helium make up almost all the matter in the universe!
quote:
quote:
Then you work some math to imagine what the universe would have been like at that time and make some predictions.
I think the key word in that sentence is "imagine".
Ugh. Tragically, you equate 'imagine' with 'completely make up.' But not only is that not correct, it betrays an odd approach to studying the natural world. Hell, Einstein's Gedankenexperiment about light-- imagining 'What if?' led to his ideas about Relativity! But you seem to reject anything that isn't grounded on here-and-now observation.
quote:
quote:
The irony in your refusal to accept the Big Bang is that while you complain that people are fabricating "myths" because they want a beginning, you are, in fact, rejecting reality because you don't want one!
I have no problems with "beginnings", or someone's concept of "reality" so long as there is evidence to support it. I see exactly no definitive evidence to support the belief that there was ever a time when atoms and matter did not exist. Until I see such evidence, I have no reason to "assume" much of anything rel |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/12/2006 17:35:52 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 16:25:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, so that is the problem: you think that satellite images are the only sort of "direct observations" which can be made of the Sun. That's simply naive,
If I had actually said that instead of what I did say, I could understand your point. Since I did not even use the term "only" in reference to direct observations, I fail to see where you got that idea.
quote:
and it's simply wrong in the case of running difference images, which aren't "direct" measurements.
The are still visual measurements, specifically visual measurements of the surface "structure". How about those Doppler images, are those "direct" measurements in your opinion?
quote:
quote:
On the other hand, I have no trouble at all explaining these images in the context of a Birkeland solar model.
Yes, you do, since you need to reverse the direction of the electron flow as compared to Birkeland's terrella.
Why?
quote:
Birkeland's ideas have precisely nothing to say about running average or running difference images.
No, but his theories can easily and elegantly be applied to running difference images and his theories explain them quite well.
quote:
quote:
We see the reflections of light from stationary hills and valleys.
Not in a running difference image, we don't.
Yes, we do. I'll resist going back on forth on each point.
quote:
Where is your evidence that there are electrical forces capable of ripping this alleged surface apart?
In that January 20th 2005 CME Dave.
quote:
Why don't CMEs shatter your allegedly solid surface, Michael?
It's mostly iron and rock Dave. Why isn't it blowing your lighter than aerogel plasma all over the place?
quote:
Why don't they at least rip the tops off the "hills?"
We occassionally do. You might checkout the January 5th and 15th events that preceeded that January 20th CME. You'll find references to those events on my running difference page.
quote:
That's not differential solar rotation, Michael, because if it were, it would mean that the Sun is rotating 100 times faster than you have measured.
What? The dust particles are just drifting in the plasma. The surface itself isn't affected by the movement of the plasma anymore than the earths crust is depending on what's blowing in the wind above it.
quote:
You still don't understand differential solar rotation.
I'm quite certain from our earlier converstations that I understand differential rotation and the *causes* of differential rotation far better than you do. That movement is possible because even dense plasma is very fluid-like. Lighter plasma acts more like a gas. We expect to see momements in gas and liquids, and we don't expect to see as much movement in something that is solid.
quote:
Your explanation makes no sense, Michael, since it rejects the reality of running difference images,
What? You're grandstanding again. What "reality of running difference images" am I "rejecting" exactly?
quote:
it rejects the reality of the strength of CMEs,
Talk about pots and kettles Dave. Evidently you're skeptical because you think solids should move, yet it's ok to explain these same structures with plasma? Talk about irrational arguements.
quote:
it rejects the reality of Birkeland's experiments,
I reject your claim that I have rejecting anything related to Birkeland's experiments.
quote:
and it rejects the reality of differential solar rotation.
You're the one with a no moment problem Dave, not me. Differential rototation is possible only because plasma is fluidlike in it's "texture". It's not rigid. It's easily moved around by magnetic fields and electrical fields and kinetic energy, all of which are present in CME's.
quote:
A challenge to other people does not in any way constitute evidence in favor of your ideas.
If however you wish to *understand* my ideas, you'll have to look at the observational evidence and if you beleive there is a way to explain it with plasma, you go right ahead. If you can't do that, then I see no verication of gas model theory in satellite images.
quote:
No, the Doppler images show nothing rigid at all. The features you claim are rigid are actually strong plasma flows.
You me |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 16:42:29 [Permalink]
|
Re "no way to test for inflation", I found this site, which noted:quote:
This might all seem like a philosophical debate as futile as the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, except for the fact that observations of the background radiation by COBE showed exactly the pattern of tiny irregularities that the inflationary scenario predicts. One of the first worries about the idea of inflation (long ago in 1981) was that it might be too good to be true. In particular, if the process was so efficient at smoothing out the Universe, how could irregularities as large as galaxies, clusters of galaxies and so on ever have arisen? But when the researchers looked more closely at the equations they realised that quantum fluctuations should still have been producing tiny ripples in the structure of the Universe even when our Universe was only something like 10^{-25} of a centimetre across -- a hundred million times bigger than the Planck length.
The theory said that inflation should have left behind an expanded version of these fluctuations, in the form of irregularities in the distribution of matter and energy in the Universe. These density perturbations would have left an imprint on the background radiation at the time matter and radiation decoupled (about 300,000 years after the Big Bang), producing exactly the kind of nonuniformity in the background radiation that has now been seen, initially by COBE and later by other instruments. After decoupling, the density fluctuations grew to become the large scale structure of the Universe revealed today by the distribution of galaxies. This means that the COBE observations are actually giving us information about what was happening in the Universe when it was less than 10^{-20} of a second old.
Oh well-- like Red Shift, I'm sure that some Obscure Physicist has a Theory That On One Accepts which explains things in terms of Steady State and Iron-filled stars. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 16:53:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The real issue here is movement, and specially a *lack of movement* that you see in Doppler and RD images. While that wave passes through the photosphere like a wave passing through liquid, the structures under that photosphere are rigid and remain rigid over much longer timelines. If you want to know what it *should* look like if it's made of plasma, you *should* see some movement that is consistent with the texture of plasma.
Point of clarification: aren't we looking at an object that's got a diameter of about 870,000 miles, and that is 93 million miles away, all on an image that's the size of a computer screen? How much can we really say about the movement or the lack thereof given this?
I submit that the blue stuff in this image is colbalt:
It shows that the earth has a solid surface of silcone (the brown stuff) and cobalt (the blue stuff) with a super-layer of white clouds.  |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 08/11/2006 16:54:50 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 17:23:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, the most obvious reason this layer can't be made of hydrogen plasma is because there's no movement in the patterns over very long timeframes. Thin plasma doesn't behave like that. The structure of the photosphere are created and destroyed in roughly 8 minute intervals and the surface is very "fluid-like" by nature and moves around.
Where are you getting this "8 minute" time limit which you keep imposing? Why couldn't very large masses take hours to swirls and reshape themselves? We are taking about plasma formations on a massive scale. Why should we assume they couldn't persist for hours? Why is this not a more likely presumption than assuming that the features are actually massive solids that vaporize away through electrical erosion in a matter of hours? Which is the bigger assumption?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/11/2006 17:24:32 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 17:46:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, since you can't see it, then you must be right. We'll scrap the whole thing, I guess.
Unless you can show me some actual evidence to support the existence of inflaton fields that exists *outside* of your one special instance theory, and you offer me a way to test for the existence of inflaton fields, I'm going to remain skeptical to the idea, and I'm going to consider it to be a "metaphysical" concept.
quote:
So evolution is wrong when some new fossil pushes back the dates for a human ancestor, I guess.
If we somehow found evidence of fully formed and fully developed human ancestors running around 3.X billion years ago based on the fossil records then I think you'd have a viable comparison to what's going on in astronomy today. That's the problem with the Spitzer and Hubble data. It shows larger and more mature galaxies than the one we're sitting in today, and these were formed within 1 billion years of the event. The early predictions claimed that galaxies wouldn't even form for several billions of years and they wouldn't form into "mature" galaxies for many billions more.
quote:
quote:
It doesn't really matter. Iron could have "evolved" over that timeline anyway. I could still explain an iron sun in the context of BB.
No you can't! You need non-iron stars to make heavier elements. But under your model, stars are already made up of heavy elements like iron!
I think you missed my point. My point is that there is plenty of iron in our universe either way you look at it. Our own earth has lots of iron and everyone just accepts it's here. I don't need additional iron to o explain my solar theory today. Iron would have already formed by now, so it's no big deal and has no affect whatsoever on my solar theories.
quote:
Huh? You argued above that the Big Bang (as a theory) was developed at least in part because people wanted to have a creation myth. I simply noted that a creation myth had nothing to do with Hubble's obeservations.
Hubble's observations have absolutely nothing to do with my resistance to the creation myth involving metaphysical inflation fields. Hubble's observations can be explained in terms of a "slam" theory just a certainly as bang theory. My point is that astronomers want a "beginning" so they "imagine" a time when no matter (atoms) existed regardless of whether or not such a time ever existed.
quote:
Well, I've done some looking into it, and it seems that his ideas about quasars have generally been rejected. This, I'm sure, in your mind, means he's dead on. In any case, as a non-specialist, I am forced to some extent to listen to other experts.
Except of course you're being very picky about which "experts" you seem to listen to. That paper I posted on MECO's demonstrates that GM allows for intrinsicly redshifted objects.
I'm going to resist the urge to allow this conversation to deevolve into a debate about BB theory. I'm not really interested in debating Arps theories in this thread.
quote:
I am forced to agree with the mainstream.
Ya, that happens a lot to most people.
quote:
Do the math, man. Closer and denser means higher temperatures, and at higher temperatures molecules break down.
By that logic we would expect two galaxies to break down every molecule in both galaxies. That isn't what happens in real life however. In the real universe proximity can lead to collisions, but not necessarily the breakdown of every molecule in the system.
quote:
At really high temperatures, even atoms don't maintain their bonds.
By you don't know if there were really high temperatures "everwhere" any more than there are "really high temperatures" in every solar system in a galaxy collision.
quote:
This is the whole point of CMBR! This is exactly what people like Gamow and Alpher were talking about!
But the CMBR can be explained in more than one way, and I offered you some options in two BB threads. It's just data that shows we have a microwave background. There's also an x-ray backround too.
quote:
It's why Hydrogen and Helium make up almost all the matter in the universe!
That hydrogen/heluim abundance claim is only true if suns are not mass separated by the element. If however hydrogen and helium layers are simply the outside layers and therefore the hottest layers of the solar atmosphere, then your abundance numbers get stood on their head, and iron becomes the most abuandant material in the universe. According to nuclear chemical research on various isotopes, the sun is a mass separator of plasmas. That is hardly surprizing mind you, expecially since we use magnetic fields and centrifuges to separate elements and isotopes here on earth.
quote:
Then you work some math to imagine what the universe would have been like at that time and make some predictions.
I imagine it looked a lot like a galaxy collision assuming that Arp is dead wrong. If Arp is correct however, then all bets are off.
quote:
Ugh. Tragically, you equate 'imagine' with 'completely make up.' But not only is that not correct, it betrays an odd approach to studying the natural world. Hell, Einstein's Gedankenexperiment about light-- imagining 'What if?' led to his ideas about Relativity! But you seem to reject anything that isn't grounded on here-and-now observation.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/11/2006 17:51:33 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 20:08:25 [Permalink]
|
I think it's quite telling, Michael, how you'll criticize me for going off on tangents and failing to address the central points, and then traipse off with Cune for a whirlwind tour of your misunderstandings of Big Bang theory while leaving my request for us to continue with those things that you feel are central to your "model" completely unanswered.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If I had actually said that instead of what I did say, I could understand your point. Since I did not even use the term "only" in reference to direct observations, I fail to see where you got that idea.
I got it from the fact that you said that you'll ignore any explanations of any other kinds of direct observations of the Sun using the gas model. And you said that because you said that without explanations of the satellite images, you see no evidence that the gas model is correct. I know you didn't use the word "only," but you made it abundantly clear that you consider satellite images to be the only evidence of solar theories which you will accept.quote:
The are still visual measurements, specifically visual measurements of the surface "structure".
And now you're shifting the goalposts: first you said "direct" observations, and now you're switching to "visual measurements." Of course, this doesn't really matter, because if you don't understand the processing that the original "visual" data is put through, then your interpretation of the results will be wrong. You'll assume, for example, that you see shadows and peaks and valleys where none exist.quote:
How about those Doppler images, are those "direct" measurements in your opinion?
They cannot be, since they are also running difference images, which make their interpretation as "visual measurements" counterintuitive.quote:
quote:
quote:
On the other hand, I have no trouble at all explaining these images in the context of a Birkeland solar model.
Yes, you do, since you need to reverse the direction of the electron flow as compared to Birkeland's terrella.
Why?
You said so yourself, Michael: you think that the arcs come from the surface of the Sun. That is opposed to the direction of the "current" in Birkeland's experiments.quote:
quote:
Birkeland's ideas have precisely nothing to say about running average or running difference images.
No, but his theories can easily and elegantly be applied to running difference images and his theories explain them quite well.
First you have to interpret the images properly, Michael. You have not done so.quote:
quote:
quote:
We see the reflections of light from stationary hills and valleys.
Not in a running difference image, we don't.
Yes, we do. I'll resist going back on forth on each point.
You will only interpret running difference images as showing "hills and valleys" if you ignore the fact that they are running difference images, and thus have no "shadows" and "light sources" like a normal image, Michael. Your rejection of these facts simply proves my points.quote:
quote:
Where is your evidence that there are electrical forces capable of ripping this alleged surface apart?
In that January 20th 2005 CME Dave.
Your answer offers no evidence that any surface was ripped apart by that CME, Michael.quote:
quote:
Why don't CMEs shatter your allegedly solid surface, Michael?
It's mostly iron and rock Dave.
So are buildings in an atomic blast, Michael.quote:
Why isn't it blowing your lighter than aerogel plasma all over the place?
Who said it wasn't? Oh, that's right: you are the only person here claiming that the plasma is what's seen in the running difference images. I don't subscribe to your strawman, Michael, and so see no reason to believe that the plasma is not blowing around violently. In fact, if the plasma were not moving around at hundreds or thousands of kilometers per hour (or more!), then all of our images of coronal loops would look quite different than they do. They'd look more like sunspots, really.quote:
quote:
Why don't they at least rip the tops off the "hills?"
We occassionally do. You might checkout the January 5th and 15th events that preceeded that January 20th CME. You'll find references to those events on my running difference page.
If you can't be bothe |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 20:16:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Where are you getting this "8 minute" time limit which you keep imposing?
He's getting it from the fact that the "granules" seen in the visible "surface" of the photosphere come and go on an eight-minute timeframe.quote:
Why couldn't very large masses take hours to swirls and reshape themselves? We are taking about plasma formations on a massive scale. Why should we assume they couldn't persist for hours? Why is this not a more likely presumption than assuming that the features are actually massive solids that vaporize away through electrical erosion in a matter of hours? Which is the bigger assumption?
Actually, neither one is correct. The real answer is more analogous to rock-concert laser shows, but Michael has already shown that he's not interested in any actual coronal theories, nor the real meaning of running difference images. Such explanations would ruin his "solid surface" conjecture completely, so he's much more content to be jousting with strawmen of his own creation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 20:18:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Do the math, man. Closer and denser means higher temperatures, and at higher temperatures molecules break down.
By that logic we would expect two galaxies to break down every molecule in both galaxies. That isn't what happens in real life however. In the real universe proximity can lead to collisions, but not necessarily the breakdown of every molecule in the system.
quote:
At really high temperatures, even atoms don't maintain their bonds.
By you don't know if there were really high temperatures "everwhere" any more than there are "really high temperatures" in every solar system in a galaxy collision.
Wow. I think there's a fundamental problem here-- perhaps enough that (again) I'll have to bow out of the "debate". Because oneof us is arguing from a rather ill-informed position.
At the start of this Big Bang debate, I was rather ignorant of the specifics and history of the theory. Since then, I've read a few books, search web pages, and spoken with a professor at a major university. This gave me (or so I thought) a rather clear picture of things. But your objections seen to be in complete discord with what I understand. That is, you're saying "but when two galaxies collide, this doesn't happen" but we're taking about what the Big Bang says during its earliest periods. It's not two galaxies, it's the whole universe!
This is pretty basic stuff, it seems. Alpher's work is based on it, and CMBR was predicted based on these assumptions. If you don't grasp that, then either a) the entire world of physics-- thousands ot researchers and grad students-- are all idiots, or b) you need to brush up on the Big Bang. Even if you disagree, the idea of "know your enemy" applies in the world of academia. You can't disprove a theory until you're as familiar with it as its biggest proponents.
quote:
This is the whole point of CMBR! This is exactly what people like Gamow and Alpher were talking about!
But the CMBR can be explained in more than one way, and I offered you some options in two BB threads. It's just data that shows we have a microwave background. There's also an x-ray backround too.
Again, you seem to be missing key points. When red shift is taken into account, it explains much about the early universe. It's a predicted outcome of the early universe with the Big Bang. It's almost prefectly uniform-- another prediction. Its imprefections, I've recently read, were predicted by inflation theory, and demonstrated by COBE. It's al well and good to say "the Big Slam predicts that, too" but you need to show it on some grander scale than some goofy internet forum. And regardless, even here your suggestions are weak. Where's the math? Where are the predictions of the Big Slam? Simply piggy-backing the Big Bang is unconvincing.
quote:
quote:
It's why Hydrogen and Helium make up almost all the matter in the universe!
That hydrogen/heluim abundance claim is only true if suns are not mass separated by the element. If however hydrogen and helium layers are simply the outside layers and therefore the hottest layers of the solar atmosphere, then your abundance numbers get stood on their head, and iron becomes the most abuandant material in the universe. According to nuclear chemical research on various isotopes, the sun is a mass separator of plasmas. That is hardly surprizing mind you, expecially since we use magnetic fields and centrifuges to separate elements and isotopes here on earth.
I guess I don't understand. But once again, for this to be correct, the Big Bang must be wrong, since it predicts that Hydrogen and Helium to be the most plentiful elements by far. Also, the entire world of astronomy must be wrong, since this is the concensus. Should I nominate for the Nobel Prize, or has someone else taken care of that?
quote:
quote:
Then you work some math to imagine what the universe would have been like at that time and make some predictions.
I imagine it looked a lot like a galaxy collision assuming that Arp is dead wrong. If Arp is correct however, then all bets are off.
Again, you seem to have a fundamentally different grasp of the early universe according to the Big Bang than I do. Because no serious Big Bang literature I've read would say that the early universe just looked like some galaxies colliding. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
